REMA.RKS 


OF   THE 


HON. STEPHEN  A.. DOUGLAS, 


KANSAS,  UTAH, 


THE  DEED  SCOTT  DECISION. 


Delivered  at  Springfield,  Illinois,  June  12th,  1857. 


CHICAGO: 

PRINTED  AT  THE  DAILY  TIMES  BOOK  AND  JOB  OFFICE. 

SO.  48  LA   SALLR  STREBT,  SECOND  AND  THIRD  BTORIBS. 

1857. 


University  of  California  •  Berkeley 


KANSAS,  UTAH,  &  THE  DRED  SCOTT  DECISION. 


REMARKS 


HON.  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS, 

DKM7BXBI)  AT  THE   >TATB    HOITSK    IK    IPRINQFIBI.I),  JUXB   12,   1W7. 


Mr.  President,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen :  I  appear  before  you  to-night,  at  the 
request  of  the  Grand  Jury  in  attendance  upon  the  United  States  Court,  for  the 
purpose  of  submitting  my  views  upon  certain  topics  upon  which  they  have 
expressed  a  desire  to  hear  me.  It  was  not  my  purpose,  when  I  arrived 
among  you,  to  have  engaged  in  any  public  or  political  discussion ;  but  when 
called  upon  by  a  body  of  gentlemen  so  intelligent  and  respectable,  coming 
from  all  parts  of  the  State,  and  connected  with  the  administration  of  public 
justice,  I  do  not  feel  at  liberty  to  withhold  a  full  and  frank  expression 
of  my  opinion  upon  the  subjects  to  which  they  have  referred,  and  which  now 
engross  so  large  a  share  of  the  public  attention. 

The  points  which  I  am  requested  to  discuss  are — 

1st.  The  present  condition  and  prospects  of  Kansas. 

2d.  The  principles  affirmed  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in 
the  Dred  Scott  case. 

3d.  The  condition  of  things  in  Utah,  and  the  appropriate  remedies  for 
existing  evils. 

Of  the  Kansas  question  but  little  need  be  said  at  the  present  time.  You 
are  familiar  with  the  history  of  the  question,  and  my  connection  with  it. 
Subsequent  reflection  has  strengthened  and  confirmed  my  convictions  in  the 
soundness  of  the  principles  on  which  I  acted,  and  the  correctness  of  the  course 
I  have  felt  it  my  duty  to  pursue  upon  that  subject.  Kansas  is  about  to  speak 
for  herself,  through  her  delegates  assembled  in  convention  to  form  a  constitu- 
tion, preparatory  to  her  admission  into  the  Union  on  an  equal  footing  with 
the  original  States.  Peace  and  prosperity  now  prevail  throughout  her 
borders.  The  law  under  which  her  delegates  are  about  to  be  elected  is  be- 
lieved to  be  just  and  fair  in  all  its  objects  and  provisions.  There  is  every 
reason  to  hope  and  believe  that  the  law  will  be  fairly  interpreted  and  impar- 
tially executed,  so  as  to  insure  to  every  bona  fide  inhabitant  the  free  and  quiet 


exercise  of  the1  elective  franchise.     If  any  portion  of  the  inhabitants,  acting 
under  the  advice  of  political  leade*  s  in  distant  States,  shall  choose  to  absent 
themselves  from  the  polls  and  withhold  their  votes,  with  a  view  of  leaving 
the  Free  State  Democrats  in  a  minority,  thus  securing  a  pro-slavery  consti- 
tution in  opposition  to  the  wishes  of  a  majority  of  the  people  living  under  it, 
let  the  responsibility  rest  on  those  who,  for  partizan  purposes,  will  sacrifice 
the  principles  they  profess  to  cherish  and  promote.     Upon  them  and  upon  the 
political  party  for  whose  benefit,  and  under  the  direction  of  whose  leaders, 
they  act,  let  the  blame  be  visited  for  fastening  upon  the  people  of  a  new  State 
institutions  repugnant  to  their  feelings  and  in  violation  of  their  wishes.     The 
organic  act  secures  to  the  people  of  Kansas  the  sole  and  exclusive  right  of 
forming  and  regulating  their  domestic  institutions  to  suit  themselves,  subject 
to  no  other  limitation  than  that  which  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
imposes.     The  Democratic  party  is  determined  to  see  the  great  fundamental 
principles  of  the  organic  act  carried  out  in  good  faith.     The  present  election 
law  in  Kansas,  is  acknowledged  to  be  fair  and  just — the  rights  of  the  voters 
are  clearly  defined — and  the  exercise  of  those  rights  will  be  efficiently  and 
scrupulously  protected.     Hence,  if  the  majority  of  the  people  of  Kansas  desire 
to  have  it  a  free  State,  (and  we  are  told  by  the  Republican  party  that  nine- 
tenths  of  the  people  of  that  territory  are  free  State  men, )  there  is  no  obstacle 
in  the  way  of  bringing  Kansas  into  the  Union  as  a  free  State,  by  the  votes 
and  voice  of  her  own  people,  and  in  conformity  with  the  great  principles  of 
the  Kansas-Nebraska  act — provided  all  the  Free  State  men  will  go  to  the 
polls  and  vote  their  principles  in  accordance  with  their  professions.     If  such 
is  not  the  result  let  the  consequences  be  visited  upon  the  heads  of  those  whose 
policy  it  is  to  produce  strife,  anarchy,  and  bloodshed  in  Kansas,  that  their 
party  may  profit  by  slavery  agitation  in  the  Northern  States  of  this  Union. 
That  the  Democrats  of  Kansas  will  perform  their  duty  fearlessly  and  nobly, 
according  to  the  principles  they  cherish,  I  have  no  doubt;  and  that  the  result 
of  the  struggle  will  be  such  as  will  gladden  the  heart  and  strengthen  the  hopes 
of  every  friend  of  the  Union,  I  have  entire  confidence. 

The  Kansas  question  being  settled  peacefully  and  satisfactorily,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  wishes  of  her  own  people,  slavery  agitation  should  be  banished 
from  the  halls  of  Congress  and  cease  to-be  an  exciting  element  in  our  political 
struggles.  Give  fair  play  to  that  principle  of  self-government  which  recog- 
nises the  right  of  4the  people  of  each  State  and  Territory  to  form  and  regulate 
their  own  domestic  institutions,  and  sectional  strife  will  be  forced  to  give  place 
to  that  fraternal  feeling  which  animated  the  fathers  of  the  Revolution,  and 
made  every  citizen  of  every  State  of  this  glorious  confederacy  a  member  of  a 
mon  brotherhood. 

hat  we  are  steadily  and  rapidly  approaching  that  result,  I  cannot  doubt, 
the  slavery  issue  has  already  dwindled  down  into  the  narrow  limits  covered 
by  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  in  the  Dred  Scott 
case.  The  moment  that  decision  was  pronounced,  and  before  the  opinions  of 
the  Court  could  be  published  and  read  by  the  people,  the  newspaper  press,  in 
the  interest  of  a  powerful  political  party  in  this  country,  began  to  pour  forth 
torrents  of  abuse  and  misrepresentations  not  only  upon  the  decision,  but  upon 
the  character  and  motives  of  the  venerable  chief  justice  and  his  illustrious 
associates  on  the  bench.  The  character  of  Chief  Justice  Taney  and  his  asso- 
ciate judges,  who  concurred  with  him,  require  no  eulogy — no  vindication  from 


me.     They  are  endeared  to  the  people  of  the  United  States  by  their  eminent 
public  services — venerated  for  their  great  learning,  wisdom,  and  experience — 
and  beloved  for  the  spotless  purity  of  their  characters  and  their  exemplary 
lives.     The  poisonous  shafts  of  partizan  malice  will  fall  harmless  at  their  feet, 
while  their  judicial  decisions  will  stand  in  all  future  time,  a  proud  monument 
to  their  greatness,  the  admiration  of  the  good  and  wise,  and  a  rebuke  to  the 
partizans  of  faction  and  lawless  violence.     If,  unfortunately,  any  considerable 
portion  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  shall  so  far  forget  their  obligations 
to  society  as  to  allow  partizan  leaders  to  array  them  in  violent  resistance 
to  the  final  decision  of  the  highest  judicial  tribunal  on  earth,  it  will  become 
the  duty  of  all  the  friends  of  order  and  constitutional  government,  without 
reference  to  past  political  differences,  to  organize  themselves  and  marshal 
their  forces  under  the  glorious  banner  of  the  Union,  in  vindication  of  the  con- 
stitution and  the  supremacy  of  the  laws  over  the  advocates  of  faction  and  the 
champions  of  violence.     To  preserve  the  constitution  inviolate,  and  vindicate 
the  supremacy  of  the  laws,  is  the  first  and  highest  duty  of  every  citizen  of  a 
free  republic.     The  peculiar  merit  of  our  form  of  government  over  ail  others 
consists  in  the  fact  that  the  law,  instead  of  the  arbitrary  will  of  a  hereditary 
prince,  prescribes,  defines,  and  protects  all  our  rights.  *fn  this  country  the 
law  is  the  will  Of  the  people,  embodied  and  expressed  according  to  the  forms 
of  the  constitution.     The  courts  are  the  tribunals  prescribed  by  the  constitu- 
tion, and  created  by  the  authority  of  the  people,  to  determine,  expound,  and 
enforce  the  law.     Hence,  whoever  resists  the  final  decision  of  the  highest 
judicial  tribunal,  aims  a  deadly  blow  at  our  whole  republican  system  of  gov- 
ernment— a  blow,  which  if  successful,  would  place  all  our  rights  and  liberties 
at  the  mercy  of  passion,  anarchy,  and  violence.^ I  repeat,  therefore,  that  if 
resistance  to  the  dechijnsof  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,— -in  a 
matter,  like  the  points  decided  in  the  Dred  Scott  case,  clearly  within  their 
jurisdiction  as  defined  by  the  constitution — shall  be  forced  upon  the  country  as 
a  political  issue,  it  will  become  a  distinct  and  naked  issue  between  the  friends 
and   the  enemies  of  the  constitution — the   friends  and  the  enemies  of  the 
supremacy  of  the  laws. 

The  case  of  Dred  Sej&kwas  an  action  of  trespass,  vi  et  armis,  in  the  circuit 
court  of  the  United  States  for  the  district  of  Missouri,  for  the  purpose  of 
establishing  his  claim  to  be  a  free  man,  and  was  taken  by  writ  of  error,  on  the 
application  of  Scott,  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  where  the 
final  decision  was  pronounced  by  Chief  Justice  Taney.  The  facts  of  the  case 
were  agreed  upon  and  admitted  to  be  true  by  both  parties,  and  were  in  sub- 
stance, that  Dred  Scott  was  a  negro  slave  in  Missouri  ;  that  he  went  with  his 
master,  who  was  an  officer  of  the  army,  to  Fort  Armstrong,  on  Rock  Island  ; 
thence  to  Fort  Snelling,  on  the  west  ba:;k  of  the  Mississippi  river  and 
within  the  country  covered  by  the  act  of  Congress  known  as  the  Missouri 
compromise  ;  and  thence  he  accompanied  his  master  to  the  State  of  Mis- 
souri, where  he  has  since  remained  a  slave>  Upon  this  statement  of  facts  two 
important  and  material  questions  arose,  besides  several  incidental  and  minor 
ones,  which  it  was  incumbent  upon  the  court  to  take  notice  of  and  decide. 
The  court  did  not  attempt  to  avoid  responsibility  by  disposing  of  the  case 
upon  technical  points  without  touching  the  merits,  nor  did  they  go  out  of  their 
way  to  decide  questions  not  properly  before  them  and  directly  presented  by 
the  record.  Like  honest  and  conscientious  judges .,  they  met  and  decided 


6 

each  point  as  it  arose,  and  faithfully  performed  their  whole  duty  and  nothing 
but  their  duty  to  the  country,  by  determining  all  the  questions  in  the  case, 
and  nothing  but  what  was  essential  to  the  decision  of  the  case  upon  its 
merits.  The  State  courts  of  Missouri  had  decided  against  Dred  Scott,  and 
declared  him  and  his  children  slaves,  and  the  circuit  court  of  the  United 
States,  for  the  district  of  Missouri,  had  decided  the  same  thing  in  this  very 
case,  which  had  thus  been  removed  to  the  Supreme  Court' of  the  United 
States  by  Scott,  with  the  hope  of  reversing  the  decision  of  the  circuit  court 
and  securing  his  freedom.  If  the  Supreme  Court  had  dismissed  the  writ  of 
error  for  want  of  jurisdiction,  without  first  examining  into  and  deciding  the 
merits  of  the  case,  as  they  are  now  denounced  and .  abused  for  not  having 
done,  the  result  would  have  been  to  remand  Dred  Scott  and  his  children  to 
perpetual  slavery,  under  the  decisions  which  had  already  been  pronounced  by 
the  supreme  court  of  Missouri,  as  well  as  by  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United 
States,  without  obtaining  a  decision  on  the  merits  of  his  case.  Suppose  Chief 
Justice  Taney  and  his  associates  had  thus  remanded  Dred  Scott  and  his  chil- 
dren back  to  slavery  on  a  plea  of  abatement,  or  any  mere  technical  point  not 
touching  the  merits  of  the  question,  and  without  deciding  whether  under  the 
constitution  and  laws,  as  applied  to  the  facts  of  the  case,  he  was  a  free  man 
or  a  slave,  would  they  not  have  been  denounced  with  increased  virulence  and 
bitterness,  on  the  charge  of  having  remanded  Dred  Scott  to  perpetual  slavery 
without  first  examining  the  merits  of  his  case  and  ascertaining  whether  he  was 
a  slave  or  not. 

If  the  case  had  been  disposed  of  in  that  way,  who  can  doubt  that  such 
would  have  been  the  character  of  the  denunciations  which  would  have  been 
hurled  upon  the  devoted  heads  of  those  illustrious  judges,  with  much  more 
plausibility  and  show  of  fairness  than  they  are  now  denounced  for  having 
decided  the  case  fairly  and  honestly  upon  its  merits? 

The  material  and  controlling  points  in  the  case — those  which  have  been 
made  the  subject  of  unmeasured  abuse  and  denunciation,  may  be  thus  stated  : 

1st.  The  court  decided  that,  under  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  a 
negro  descended  from  slave  parents  is  not  and  cannot  be  a  citizen  of  the  Uni- 
ted States. 

2d.  That  the  act  of  the  6th  of  March,  1820,  commonly  called  the  Missouri 
compromise  act,  was  unconstitutional  and  void  before  it  was  repealed  by  the 
Nebraska  act,  and  consequently  did  not  and  could  not  have  the  legal  effect  of 
extinguishing  a  master's  right  to  a  slave  in  that  territory.  While  the  right 
continues  in  full  force  under  the  guarantees  of  the  constitution,  and  cannot  be 
divested  or  alienated  by  an  act  of  Congress,  it  necessarily  remains  a  barren 
and  a  worthless  right,  unless  sustained,  protected  and  enforced,  by  appropriate 
police  regulations  and  local  legislation,  prescribing  adequate  remedies  for  its 
violation.  These  regulations  and  remedies  must  necessarily  depend  entirely 
upon  the  will  and  wishes  of  the  people  of  the  territory,  as  they  can  only  be 
prescribed  by  the  local  legislatures.  Hence  the  great  principle  of  popular  sov- 
ereignty and  self-government  is  sustained  and  firmly  established  by  the  authority 
of  this  decision.  Thus  it  appears  that  the  only  sin  involved  in  the  passage  of 
the  Kansas-Nebraska  act,  consists  in  the  fact  that  it  removed  from  the  statute 
book  an  act  of  Congress,  which  was  unauthorized  by  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  void  because  passed  without  constitutional  authority,  and 
substituted  in  lieu  of  it  that  great,  fundamental  principle  of  self-government, 


which  recognizes  the  right  of  the  people  of  each  State  and  Territory  to  form 
and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  and  internal  affairs  to  suit  themselves, 
in  accordance  with  the  constitution.  [Applause,]  The  wisdom  and  propriety 
of  the  measure  have  been  sustained  by  the  decision  of  the  highest  judicial  tri- 
bunal on  earth,  and  ratified  and  approved  by  the  voice  of  the  American  people, 
in  the  election  of  James  Buchanan  to  the  Presidency  of  the  United  States, 
upon  that  naked  and  distinct  issue.  I  am  willing  to  rest  the  vindication  of  the 
measure  and  my  action  in  connection  with  it  upon  that  decision  and  that  ver- 
dict of  the  American  people.  [Immense  Applause.] 

Passing  from  this,  I  will  proceed  to  the  discussion  of  the  main  proposition 
decided  by  the  court,  which  is,  that  under  the  constitution  of  the  United  States, 
a  negro,  descended  from  slave  parents  imported  from  Africa,  is  not  and  cannot 
be  a  citizen  of  the  United  States. 

.We  are  told  by  the  leaders  of  the  Republican  or  Abolition  party  that  this  / 
proposition  is  cruel,  inhuman  and  infamous,  and  should  not  be  respected  nor  *-""" 
obeyed  by  any  good  citizen.     In  what  does  the  objection  consist  ?     Wherein 
is  the  cruelty,  the  inhumanity,  the  infamy  ?     It  is  supposed  to  consist  in  depri- 
ving the  negro  of  citizenship,  and  consequently  excluding  him  from  the  exercise 
of  those  rights  and  privileges  which  are  enjoyed  in  common,  and  on  terms  of 
entire  equality,  by  all  American  citizens,  whether  native-born  or  naturalized. 
They  quote  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  which  says,  "  We  hold  these  tenths 
to  be  self-evident  that  all  men  are  CREATED  EQUAL,"  and  insist  that  this  language 
referred  to,  and  was  intended  to  include,  negroes,  as  well  as  white  men;  that  it 
embraced  men  of  all  races  and  colors,  and  placed  them  on  a  footing  of  entire  arid 
absolute  equality:  and  that  the  battles  of  the  revolution  were  fought  in  defence 
of  the  principle,  and  the  foundations  of  this  glorious  republic  were  firmly  planted 
on  the  immovable  basis  of  the  perfect  equality  of  the  races.  Hence  they  argue 
that  any  law  or  regulation,  whether  under  the  authority  of  the  State  govern: 
ments  or  that  of  the  United  States,  in  violation  of  this  fundamental  principl  eof 
negro  equality  with  white  men,  is  not  only  cruel,  inhuman  and  infamous,  ^^  js 
subversive  of  the  foundations  of  the  government jtself,  and  therefore  or^jlt  not 
to  be  respected  or  obeyed  by  any  good  citizen.?  _ff  we  grant  the  tri;4Cn  Of  their 
premises  it  would  be  vain  to  resist  the  force  of  tneir  reasoning  or  rjne  correctness 
of  their  conclusions.  Indeed,  we  would  be  compelled  as  hone^^e^  to  acknow- 
ledge and  adopt  the  principle,  and  carry  it  out  in  good  fa^ch  in  all  our  political 
action,  by  modifying  or  repealing  any  legal  or  constitutional  provision  in  con- 
flict with  that  principle.     Let  us  examine  and  see  <vhat  changes  this  principle 
would  require  in  the  constitution  and  laws  of  this  '.State,  as  well  as  of  the  United 
States.     Of  course  it  would  instantly  emancipate  and  set  at  liberty  every  slave 
in  each  State  of  this  Union,  and  in  every  place  under  the  American  flag,  and 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  federal  constitution.  Slavery  being  thus  abolished, 
the  same  principle  would  compel  us  to  strike  from  the  constitution  of  Illinois 
the  clause  which  denies  to  a  negro,  whether  free  or  slave,  the  ri^ht  to  come  and 
live  among  us,  and  in  lieu  of  it  to  open  the  door  for  the  three  millions  of  eman- 
cipated slaves  to  enter  and  become  citizens  on  an  equality  with  ourselves.  The 
same  principle  would  compel  us  to  strike  the  word  "white"  from  our  constitution, 
and  allow  the  negro  to  vote  on  an  equality  with  white  men — and  of  course  out- 
vote us  at  the  polls  when  they  become  a  majority.     The  same  principle  would 
compel  us  to  change  the  constitution  so  as  to  render  a  negro  eligible  to  the 
legislature,  to  the  bench,  to  the  governship.  to  Congress,  to  the  Presidency,  and 


8 

to  all  other  places  of  honor,  profit  or  trust,  on  an  equal  tooting  with  white  men. 
When  all  these  things  shall  have  been  done,  and  the  principle  of  negro  equality 
shall  have  been  fully  carried  out  to  this  extent,  still  the  requirements  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  will  not  have  been  satisfied,  if  it  really  means,  what 
the  Republican  or  Abolition  party  assert  it  does  mean,  in  declaring  that  a  negro 
was  created  by  the  Almighty  equal  to  a  white  man.  If  their  interpretation  of 
the  Declaration  of  Independence  be  correct,  and  the  prkciple  of  negro  equality 
be  true,  as  supposed  by  the  opponents  of  the  Dred  Suott  decision,  we  shall  cer- 
tainly be  compelled,  as  conscientious  and  just  men,  to  go  one  step  further — 
repeal  all  laws  making  any  distinction  whatever  on  account  of  race  and  color, 
and  authorize  negroes  to  marry  white  women  on  an  equality  with  white  men. 
[Immense  cheering.] 

When  the  Republican  or  Abolition  party  shall  have  done  all  these  things,  and 
thus  have  carried  into  practical  operation  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  as 
they  understand  it,  they  will  have  laid  the  foundation  for  their  organized  oppo- 
sition to  so  much  of  the  decision  of  the  Dred  Scott  case,  as  declares  that  a  negro 
is  not  a  citizen  of  the  United  States.  [Great  Applause.] 

If,  on  the  contrary,  the  opponents  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision  shall  refuse  to 
carry  out  their  views  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  and  negro  citizenship, 
by  conferring  upon  the  African  race  all  the  rights,  privileges  and  immunities  of 
citizenship,  the  same  as  they  are  or  should  be  enjoyed  By  the  white,  how  will  they 
vindicate  the  integrity  of  their  motives  and  the  sincerity  of  their  profession  ?  If 
the  negro  is  the  equal  of  the  white  man  and  was  thus  created  by  the  Almighty, 
what  right  have  they  or  we  to  reduce  him  to  a  condition  of  inequality,  by  denying 
to  him  the  privilege  of  voting,  holding  office,  rnairyiag  the  woman  of  his 
choice,  io  short,  withholding  from  him  all  political  rights,  and  consigning  him  to 
political  slavery  ?  Perceiving  the  inconsistency  between  their  professions  and 
their  past  action  on  this  point,  the  leaders  of  the  Republican^  or  Abolition 
party  in  the  Legislature  of  New  York}  and  some  of  the  New  England  States, 
and  indeed  in  Wisconsin  and  in  such  other  States  as  they  think  public  sentiment 
is  prepared  for  the  measure,  have  recently  taken  the  preliminary  steps  to 
amend  the  Constitution  of  their  respective  States,  so  as  to  allow  negroes  to  vote 
and  hold  office,  and  enjoy  all  the  rights  and  privileges  of  citizenship  on  an 
equal  footing  with  white  men.  These  movements  have  been  initiated  in  those 
States  and  will  soon  follow  in  others,  upon  the  ground  that  the  Republican 
party  was  bound  and  pledged,  by  its  creed  and  its  professions — as  proclaimed 
from  the  pulpit,  from  the  stump,  and  through  the  newspaper  press — to  carry 
out  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  as  they  profess  to  understand  it,  by 
placing  the  negro  on  an  equality  with  the  white  man,  in  all  those  States  in 
which  they  carried  the  Presidential  election  lust  fall,  and  secured  the  absolute 
control  of  all  the  departments  of  the  St;.te  government.  It  is  not  to  be  pre- 
sumed that  any  step  for  changing  the  constitution  of  Illinois,  so  as  to  confer 
the  rights  and  privileges  of  citizenship  upon  negroes,  will  be  taken  until  after 
the  next  election,  nor  will  any  such  purpose  be  openly  avowed,  but,  on  the 
contrary,  in  the  central  and  southern  portions  of  the  State  it  will  be  stoutly 
denied,  at  the  same  time  that  all  their  orators,  lecturers,  and  papers  will  con- 
tinue to  quote  the  Declaration  of  Independence  to  prove  that  the  Almighty 
created  a  negro  equal  to  a  white  man,  and  consequently  he  has  a  divine  right 
to  enjoy  all  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  white  man,  and  that  all  human 
laws  in  conflict  with  that  divine  right  must  yield  and  give  place  to  the  "higher 


law."  The  time  has  not  arrived  when  it  is  deemed  prudent  by  the  leaders  of 
the  Republican  party,  in  this  State,  to  make  a  frank  and  honest  confession  of 
faith,  and  proclaim  it  to  the  world  in  tones  that  can  be  heard  and  language 
that  can  be  understood  to  mean  the  same  thing  in  all  portions  of  the  State, 
But  so  long  as  they  quote  the  Declaration  of  Independence  to  prove  that  a 
negro  was  created  equal  to  a  white  man,  we  have  no  excuse  for  closing  our 
eyes  and  professing  ignorance  of  what  they  intend  to  do,  so  soon  as  they  get 
the  power. 

To  show  how  shallow  is  the  pretense  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
had  reference  to,  or  included,  the  negro  race  when  it  declared  all  men  created 
equal,  it  is  only  necessary  to  refer  to  a  few  historical  facts,  recorded  in  our 
school  books,  and  familiar  to  our  children. 

On  the  4th  of  July,  1776,  when  the  Declaration  of  Independence  was  pro- 
mulgated to  the  world,  A  frican  slavery  existed  in  each  one  of  the  thirteen 
colonies.  Every  signer  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  was  elected  by, 
and  represented,  a  slaveholding  constituency.  Every  battle  of  the  revolution, 
from  Lexington  and  Bunker  Hill  to  King's  Mountain  and  Yorktown,  was  fought 
in  a  slaveholding  State. 

The  treaty  of  peace,  acknowledging  and  confirming  the  independence  of  the 
United  States,  was  made  and  signed  on  behalf  of  Great  Britain  of  the  one  part 
and  of  the  thirteen  slaveholding  States  on  the  other. 

The1  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  under  which  we  now  live  so  happily, 
and  have  grown  so  great  and  powerful,  and  which  we  all  profess  to  cherish  and 
venerate,  was  formed,  adopted,  and  put  in  operation  by  the  people  of  twelv 
slaveholding  states  and  one  free  State — slavery  having  disappeared  from  Mass*1 
achusetts  about  that  time  under  the  operation  of  the  great  fundamental  prin- 
ciple of  self-government,  which  recognizes  the  right  of  each  state  and  colony 
to  regulate  its  own  domestic  and  local  affairs. 

In  view  of  these  incontrovertible  facts,  can  any  sane  man  believe  that  the 
signers  of  the  declaration  of  independence,  and  the  heroes  who  fought  the  bat- 
tles of  the  revolution,  and  the  sages  who  laid  the  foundation  of  our 
complex  system  of  federal  and  state  governments,  intended  to  place  the  negro 
race  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  white  race  ?  If  such  had  been  their  purpose 
would  they  not  have  abolished  slavery  and  converted  every  negro  into  a  citizen 
on  the  day  on  which  they  put  forth  the  Declaration  of  Independence  ?  Did 
they  do  it  ?  Did  any  of  the  thirteen  States  abolish  slavery — much  less 
place  the  negro  on  an  equality  with  the  white  man  during  the  whole  revolu- 
tionary struggle  ?  History  records  the  emphatic  answer— No.  Not  one  of 
the  original  states  abolished  slavery  during  the  revolution,  nor  has  any  one  of 
them,  at  any  time  since,  extended  to  the  African  race  all  the  rights  and  privi- 
leges of  citizenship  on  terms  of  an  entire  equality  with  the  white  man. 

No  one  can  vindicate  the  character,  motives,  and  conduct  of  the  signers  of 
the  Declaration  of  Independence,  except  upon  the  hypothesis  that  they 
referred  to  the  white  race  alone,  and  not  to  the  African,  when  they  declared 
all  men  to  have  been  created  equal — that  they  were  speaking  of  British  sub- 
jects on  this  continent  being  equal  to  British  subjects  bom  and  residing  in 
Great  Britain — that  they  were  entitled  to  the  same  inalienable  rights,  and 
among  them  were  enumerated  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.  The 
declaration  was  adopted  for  the  purpose  of  justifying  the  colonists,  in  the 
eyes  of  the  civilized  world,  in  withdrawing  their  allegiance  from  the  British 


V 


10 

crown,  and  dissolving  their  connection  with  the  mother  country.  In  this 
point  of  view  the  Declaration  of  Independence  is  in  perfect  harmouy  with  all 
the  events  of  the  Revolution,  and  the  line  of  policy  pursued  under  the  articles 
of  confederation,  and  the  principles  embodied  and  established  in  the  federal 
constitution.  The  history  of  the  times  clearly  shows  that  the  negroes  were 
regarded  as  an  inferior  race,  who,  in  all  ages,  and  in  every  part  of  the  globe, 
and  under  the  most  favorable  circumstances,  had  shown  themselves  incapable 
of  self-government,  and  consequently  under  the  protection  of  those  who  were 
capable  of  providing  for  and  protecting  them  in  the  exercise  of  all  the  rigUs 
they  were  capable  of  enjoying,  consistent  with  the  good  and  safety  of  society. 
It  is  on  this  principle  that  in  all  civilized  and  Christian  countries  the  govern- 
ment provides  for  the  protection  of  the  insane,  the  lunatic,  the  idiotic,  and 
all  other  unfortunates  who  are  incompetent  to  take  care  of  themselves.  It 
does  not  follow  by  any  means  that  because  the  negro  race  are  incapable  of 
governing  themselves  that  therefore  they  should  become  slaves  and  be  treated 
as  such.  The  safe  rule  upon  that  subject,  I  apprehend  to  be  this,  that  the 
African  race  should  be  allowed  to  exercise  all  the  rights  and  privileges  which 
they  are  capable  of  enjoying,  consistent  with  the  welfare  of  the  community 
in  which  they  reside,  and  that,  under  our  form  of  government,  the  people  of 
each  State  and  Territory  must  be  allowed  to  determine  for  themselves  the 
nature  and  extent  of  those  privileges.  [Applause.] 

The  whole  history  of  our  country  clearly  shows  that  our  fathers  acted  on 
this  principle,  not  only  in  promulgating  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
but  in  laying  the  foundations  and  erecting  the  superstructure  of  our  complex 
system  of  federal  and  State  governments.  Whoever  will  take  the  pains  to 
examine  the  journals  of  the  Continental  Congress,  will  find  that  nearly  every 
colony,  before  it  would  authorize  its  delegates  to  assent  to  a  Declaration  of 
Independence,  placed  on  record  an  express  condition,  reserving  to  itself  the 
sole  and  exclusive  right  of  regulating  its  own  internal  affairs,  and  domestic 
concerns,  and  local  police,  without  the  interference  of  the  general  congress,  or 
of  any  other  State  or  colony.  The  battles  of  the  Revolution  were  all  fought 
in  defence  of  this  principle,  and  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  was 
formed  and  adopted  for  the  purpose  of  perpetuating  it  in  all  time  to  come  ; 
at  the  same  time  it  combined  all  the  people  of  the  Union  in  one  confederacy 
with  certain  specified  and  limited  powers  for  the  common  defence  and  general 
welfare. 

Under  this  system  of  government  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  African 
race  remain  precisely  as  they  were  when  the  constitution  of  the  United  States 
was  adopted,  dependent  entirely  upon  the  local  legislation  and  policy  of  the 
several  States  where  they  may  be  found.  In  my  opicion,  the  policy  of  Illinois 
has  been  a  wise  and  just  one  in  regard  to  this  race,  and  ought  to  be  continued, 
only  making  such  changes  from  time  to  time  as  experience  shall  prove  to  be 
just  and  necessary.  While  Illinois  hns  the  undoubted  right,  under  the  consti- 
tution of  the  United  States,  to  adopt  and  persevere  in  this  line  of  policy,  Vir- 
ginia and  each  other  State  has  a  right  equally  clear  and  undeniable  to  pursue 
a  line  of  policy,  on  the  same  subject,  directly  the  reverse  of  ours,  and  we  have 
no  more  right  to  complain  of,  or  interfere  with,  the  local  and  domestic  concerns 
of  other  States  and  Territories  than  they  have  with  ours.  [  Applause.] 

The  founders  of  our  government  did  not  deem  it  possible,  nor  desirable  if 
practicable,  to  maintain  entire  uniformity  in  the  local  legislation  and  domestic 


11 

institutions  of  the  different  States,  and  for  this  reason  each  State  was  allowed 
a  separate  and  distinct  legislature,  with  full  powers  over  all  internal  and  local 
concerns,  in  order  that  each  might  shape  and  vary  its  internal  policy,  and  adapt 
it  to  the  circumstances,  interests  and  wishes  of  its  own  people.      While  there 
was  a  diversity  of  opinion  in  regard  to  the  extent  of  the  rights  and  privileges 
which  could  be  safely  entrusted  to  the  African  race  in  the  different  States, 
they  all  repudiated  the  doctrine  of  the  equality  of  the  white  and  black  races, 
and  concurred  in  that  line  of  policy  which  should  preserve  the  purity  of  each,         /' 
and  prevent  any  species  of  amalgamation,  political,  social  or  domestic.     They  i  / 
had  witnessed  the  sad  and  melancholy  results  of  the  mixture  of  the  races  ill  V 
Mexico,  South  America  and  Central  America,    where  the  Spaniards,   from! 
motives  of  policy,  had  admitted  the  negro  and  other  inferior  races,  to  citizen^ 
ship,  and,  consequently,  to  political  and  social  amalgamation.     The  demoralP, 
zation  and  degredation  which  prevailed  in  the  Spanish  and  French  colonies,! 
where  no  distinction  on  account  of  color  or  race  were  tolerated,  operated  as  a  I 
warning  to  our  revolutionary  fathers  to  preserve  the  purity  of  the  white  race,  I 
and  to  establish  their  political,  social  and  domestic  institutions  upon  such  a/ 
basis  as  would  forever  exclude  the  idea  of  negro  citizenship  and  negro  equality./ 
[Applause.] 

They  understood  that  great  natural  law  which  declaims  that  amalgamation, 
between  superior  a/id  inferior  races,  brings  their  posterity  down  to  the  lower 
level  of  the  inferior,  but  never  elevatss  them  to  the  higher  level  of  the  superior 
race.  I  appeal  to  each  of  those  gallant  young  men  before  me,  who  won  im- 
mortal glory  on  the  bloody  fields  of  Mexico,  in  vindication  of  their  country's 
rights  and  honor,  whether  their  information  and  observation  in  that  country, 
does  riot  fully  sustain  the  truth  of  the  proposition  that  amalgamation  is  degra- 
ding, demoralizing,  disease  and  death  ?  Is  it  true  that  the  negro  is  our  equal 
and  our  brother?  The  history  of  the  tirnes,clearly  show  that  our  fathers  did 
not  regard  the  negro  race  as  any  kin  to  them,  and  determined  so  to  Jay  the 
foundations  of  society  and  govern  merit  that  they  should  never  be  of  any  kin 
to  their  posterity.  [Immense  applause.] 

But  when  you  confer  upon  the  African  race  the  privileges  of  citizenship,  and 
put  them  upon  an  equality  with  white  men  at  the  polls,  in  the  jury  box,  on  the 
bench,  in  the  executive  chair,  and  in  the  councils  of  the  nation,  upon  what 
principle  will  you  deny  their  equality  at  the  festive  board  and  in  the  domestic 
circle. 

The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  has  decided  that,  under  the  consti- 
tution, a  negro  is  not  and  cannot  be  a  citizen. 

The  Republican  or' Abolition  party  pronounce  that  decision  cruel,  inhuman 
and  infamous,  and  appeal  to  the  American  people  to  disregard  and  refuse  to 
obey  it.  Let  us  join  issue  with  them  and  put  ourselves  upon  the  country  for 
trial.  [Cheers  and  applause.] 

Mr.  President,  I  will  now  respond  to  the  call  which  has  been  made  upon 
me  for  my  opinion  of  ' he  condition  of  things  in  "Utah,  and  the  appropriate 
remedy  for  existing  evils. 

The  Territory  of  Utah  was  organized  under  one  of  the  acts  known  as  the 
compromise  measures  of  1850.  on  the  supposition  that  the  inhabitants  were 
American  citizens,  owing  and  acknowledging  allegiance  to  the  United  States, 
and  consequently  entitled  to  the  benefits  of  self  government  while  a  territory 
and  to  admission  into  the  Union,  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  States 


\ 


12 

so  soon  as  they  should  number  the  requisite  population.  It  was  conceded  on 
all  hands,  and  by  all  parties,  that  the  peculiarities  of  their  religious  faith  and 
ceremonies  interposed  no  valid  and  constitutional  objection  to  their  reception 
into  the  Union,  in  conformity  with 'the  federal  constitution,  so  long  as  they 
were  in  all  other  respects  entitled  to  admission.  Hence  the  great  political 
parties  of  the  country  indorsed  and  approved  the  compromise  measures  of  1850, 
including  the  act  for  the  organization  of  the  Territory  of  Utah,  with  the  hope 
and  in  the  confidence  that  the  inhabitants  would  conform  to  the  constitution 
and  laws,  and  prove  themselves  worthy,  respectable  and  law-abiding  citizens. 
If  we  are  permitted  to  place  credence  in  the  rumors  and  reports  from  that 
country,  (and  it  must  be  admitted  that  they  have  increased  and  strengthened, 
and  assumed  consistency  and  plausibility  by  each  succeeding  mail,)  seven  years 
experience  has  disclosed  a  state  of  facts  entirely  different  from  that  which  was 
supposed  to  exist  when  Utah  was  organized.  These  rumors  and  reports  would 
seem  to  justify  the  belief  that  the  following  facts  are  susceptible  of  proof: 

1st.  That  nine-tenths  of  the  inhabitants  are  aliens  by  birth,  who  have 
refused  to  become  naturalized,  or  to  take  the  oath  of  allegiance,  or  to  do  any 
other  act  recognizing  the  government  of  the  United  States  as  the  paramount 
authority  in  that  Territory, 

2cL  That  all  the  inhabitants,  whether  native  or  alien  born,  known  as  Mor- 
mons, (and  they  constitute  the  whole  people  of  the  Territory,)  are  bound  by 
horrid  oaths  and  terrible  penalties  to  recognize  and  maintain  the  authority  of 
Brigham  Young,  and  the  government  of  which  he  is  the  head,  as  paramount 
to  that  of  the  United  States,  in  civil  as  well  as  religious  affairs ;  and  that  they 
will,  in  due  time,  and  under  the  direction  of  their  leaders,  use  all  means  in 
their  power  to  subvert  the  government  of  the  United  States,  and  resist  its 
authority. 

3d.  That  the  Mormon  government,  with  Brigham  Young  at  its  head,  is  now 
forming  alliances  with  the  Indian  tribes  of  Utah  and  the  adjoining  Territories 
— stimulating  the  Indians  to  acts  of  hostility — and  organizing  bands  of  his  own  • 
followers,  under  the  name  of  "  Danites  or  Destroying  Angels,"  to  prosecute  a 
system  of  robbery  and  murder  upon  American  citizens,  who  support  the  author- 
ity of  the  United  States,  and  denounce  the  infamous  and  disgusting  practices 
and  institutions  of  the  Mormon  government. 

If,  upon  a  full  investigation,  these  representations  shall  prove  true,  they  will 
establish  the  fact  that  the  inhabitants  of  Utah,  as  a  community,  are  out-laws 
and  alien  enemies,  unfit  to  exercise  the  right  of  self-government  under  the 
organic  act,  and  unworthy  to  be  admitted  into  the  Union  as  a  State,  when 
their  only  object  in  seeking  admission  is  to  interpose  the  sovereignty  ot  the 
the  State  as  an  invincible  shield  to  protect  them  in  their  treason  and  crime, 
debauchery  and  infamy.  [Applause.] 

Under  this  view  of  the  subject,  I  think  it  is  the  duty  of  the  President,  as  1 
have  no  doubt  it  is  his  fixed  purpose,  to  remove  Brigham  Young  and  all  his 
followers  from  office,  and  to  fill  their  places  with  bold,  able,  and  true  men,  and 
to  cause  a  thorough  and  searching  investigation  into  all  the  crimes  and  enor- 
mities which  are  alleged  to  be  perpetrated  daily  in  that  Territory,  under  the 
direction  of  Brigham  Young  and  his  confederates;  and  to  use  all  the  military 
force  necessary  to  protect  the  officers  in  the  discharge  of  their  duties,  and  to 
enforce  the  laws  of  the  land.  [Applause.] 

When  the  authentic  evidence  shall  arrive,  if  it  shall  establish  the  facts  which 


13 

are  believed  to  exist,  it  will  become  the  duty  of  Congress  to  apply  the  knife 
and  cut  out  this  loathsome,  disgusting  ulcer.  [Applause.]  No  temporizing 
policy — no  half-way  measure  will  then  answer.  It  has  been  supposed  by  those 
who  have  not  thought  deeply  upon  the  subject,  that  an  act  of  Congress  pro- 
hibiting murder,  robbery,  polygamy,  and  other  crimes,  with  appropriate  penal- 
ties for  those  offences,  would  afford  adequate  remedies  for  all  the  enormities 
complained  of.  Suppose  such  a  law  to  be  on  the  statute  book,  and  I  believe 
they  have  a  criminal  code,  providing  the  usual  punishments  for  the  entire 
catalogue  of  crimes,  according  to  the  usages  of  all  civilized  and  Christian 
countries,  with  the  exception  of  polygamy,  which  is  practiced  under  the  sanc- 
tion of  the  Mormon  church,  but  is  neither  prohibited  nor  authorized  by  the 
laws  of  the  Territory. 

Suppose,  I  repeat,  that  Congress  should  pass  a  law  prescribing  a  criminal 
code  and  punishing  polygamy  among  other  offences,  what  effect  would  it 
have — what  good  would  it  do?  Would  you  call  on  twenty-three  grand  jury- 
men with  twenty-three  wives  each,  to  find  a  bill  of  indictment  against  a  poor 
miserable  wretch  for  having  two  wives  ?  [Cheers  and  laughter.]  Would  you 
rely  upon  twelve  petit  jurors  with  twelve  wives  each  to  convict  the  same 
loathsome  wretch  for  having  two  wives  ?  [Continued  applause.]  Would  you 
expect  a  grand  jury  composed  of  twenty-three  "Danites"  to  find  a  bill  of 
indictment  against  a  brother  "Danite"  for  having,  under  their  direction, 
murdered  a  Gentile,  as  they  call  all  American  citizens  ?  Much  less  would  you 
expect  a  jury  of  twelve  4<  destroying  angels"  to  find  another  "destroying 
angel "  guilty  of  the  crime  of  murder,  and  cause  him  to  be  hanged  for  110 
other  offence  than  that  of  taking  the  life  of  a  Gentile  !  No.  If  there  is  any 
truth  in  the  reports  we  receive  from  Utah,  Congress  may  pass  what  laws  it 
chooses,  but  you  can  never  rely  upon  the  local  tribunals  and  juries  to  punish 
crimes  committed  by  Mormons  in  that  Territory.  Some  other  and  more 
effectual  remedy  must  be  devised  and  applied.  In  my  opinion  the  first  step 
should  be  the  absolute  and  unconditional  repeal  of  the  organic  act — blotting 
the  territorial  government  out  of  existence — upon  the  ground  that  they  are 
alien  enemies  and  outlaws,  denying  their  allegiance  and  defying  the  authority 
of  the  United  States.  [Immense  applause.] 

The  territorial  government  once  abolished,  the  country  would  revert  to  its 
primitive  condition,  prior  to  the  act  of  1 850,  "  under  the  sole  and  exclusive 
jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,"  and  should  be  placed  under  the  operation 
of  the  act  of  Congress  of  the  30th  of  April,  1790,  and  the  various  acts  sup- 
plemental thereto  and  amendatory  thereof,  "providing  for  the  punishment  of 
crimes  against  the  United  States  within  any  fort,  arsenal,  dock-yard,  maga- 
zine, Or  ANY  OTHER  PLACE  OR  DISTRICT  OF  COUNTRY,  UNDER  THE  SOLE  AND  EXCLU- 
SIVE jurisdiction  of  the  United  States.  All  offences  against  the  provisions  of 
these  acts  are  required  by  law  to  be  tried  and  punished  by  the  United  States 
courts  in  the  States  or  territories  where  the  offenders  shall  be  "  FIRST  APPRE- 
HENDED OR  BROUGHT  FOR  TRIAL."  Thus  it  will  be  seen  that,  under  the  plan  pro- 
posed, Brigham  Young  and  his  confederates  could  be  *'  apprehended  and 
and  brought  for  trial"  to  Iowa  or  Missouri,  California  or  Oregon,  or  to  any 
other  adjacent  State  or  territory,  where  a  fair  trial  could  be  had,  and  justice 
administered  impartially — where  the  witnesses  could  be  protected  and  the 
judgment  of  the  court  could  be  carried  into  execution,  without  violence  or 
intimidation.  I  do  not  propose  to  introduce  any  new  principles  into  our 


14 

jurisprudence,  nor  to  change  the  modes  of  proceeding  or  the  rules  of  practice 
in  our  courts.  I  only  propose  to  place  the  district  of  country  embraced  within 
the  territory  of  Utah  under  the  operation  of  the  same  laws  and  rules  of  pro- 
ceeding that  Kansas,  Nebraska,  Minnesota,  and  our  other  Territories  were 
placed,  before  they  became,  organized  Territories.  The  whole  country  embraced 
within  those  Territories  was  under  the  operation  of  that  same  system  of  laws, 
and  all  the  offences  committed  within  the  same,  were  punished  in  the  manner 
now  proposed,  so  long  as  the  country  remained  "  under  the  sole  and  exclusive 
jurisdiction  of  the  United  States ;"  but  the  moment  the  country  was  organized 
into  territorial  governments,  with  legislative,  executive  arid  judicial  depart- 
ments, it  ceased  to  be  under  the  sole  and  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  United 
States,  within  the  meaning  of  the  act  of  Congress,  for  the  reason  that  it  had 
passed  under  another  and  a  different  jurisdiction.  Hence,  if  we  abolish  the 
territorial  government  of  Utah,  preserving  all  existing  rights,  and  place  the 
country  under  the  sole  and  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,  offenders 
can  be  apprehended,  and  brought  into  the  adjacent  States  or  Territories,  for 
trial  and  -punishment,  in  the  same  manner  and  under  the  same  rules  and 
regulations,  which  obtained,  and  have  been  uniformly  practiced,  under  like 
circumstances  since  1790. 

If  the  plan  proposed  shall  be  found  an  effective  and  adequate  remedy  for 
the  evils  complained  of  in  Utah,  no  one,  no  matter  what  his  political  creed  or 
partizan  associations,  need  be  apprehensive  that  it  will  violate  any  cherished 
theory  or  constitutional  right,  in  regard  to  the  government  of  the  Territories. 
It  is  a  great  mistake  to  suppose  that  all  the  territory  or  land  belonging  to  the 
United  States,  must  necessarily  be  governed  by  the  same  laws  and  under  the 
same  clause  of  the  Constitution,  without  reference  to  the  purpose  to  which  it  is 
dedicated  or  the  use  which  it  is  proposed  to  make  of  it.  "While  all  that  portion 
of  country  which  is  or  shall  be  set  apart  to  become  new  States,  must  necessarily 
be  governed  under  and  consistent  with  that  clause  of  the  Constitution  which 
authorizes  Congress  to  admit  new  States,  it  does  not  follow  that  other  territory, 
not  intended  to  be  organized  and  .admitted  into  the  Union  as  States,  must  be 
governed  under  the  same  clause  of  the  Constitution,  with  all  the  rights  of  self- 
government  and  State  equality,  For  instance,  if  we  should  purchase  Vancou- 
ver's Island  from  Great  Britain,  for  the  purpose  of  removing  all  the  Indians 
from  our  Pacific  Territories,  and  locating  them  on  that  Island,  as  their  perma- 
nent home,  with  guarantees  that  it  should  never  be  settled  or  occupied  by 
white  men,  will  it  be  contended  that  the  purchase  should  be  made  and  the 
island  governed  under  the  power  to  admit  new  States  when  it  was  not  acquired 
for  that  purpose,  or  intended  to  be  applied  to  that  object?  Being  acquired  for 
Indian  purposes,  is  it  not  more  reasonable  to  assume  that  the  power  to  acquire 
was  derived  from  the  Indian  clause,  and  the  island  must  necessarily  be  gov- 
erned under  and  consistent  with  that  clause  of  the  Constitution  which  relates 
to  Indian  affairs.  Again,  suppose  we  should  deem  it  expedient  to  buy  a 
small  island  in  the  Mediterranean  or  Carribean  sea,  for  a  naval  station,  can  it 
be  said,  with  any  force  or  plausibility,  that  the  purchase  should  be  made  or  the 
island  governed  under  the  power  to  admit  new  States  ?  On  the  contrary,  is  it 
not  obvious  that  the  right  to  acquire  and  govern  in  that  case  is  derived  from 
the  power  "to  provide  and  maintain  a. navy,"  and  must  be  exercised  consistent 
with  that  power.  So  if  we  purchase  land  for  forts,  arsenals,  or  other  military 
purposes,  or  set  apart  and  dedicate  any  territory,  which  we  now  own,  for  a 


15 

military  reservation,  it  immediately  passes  under  the  military  power,  and  must/ 
be  governed  in  harmony  with  it.  So,  if  land  be  purchased  for  a  mint,  it  mus< 
be  governed  under  the  power  to  coin  money;  or,  if  purchased  for  a  post-offic6, 
it  must  be  governed  under  the  power  to  establish  post-offices  and  post-roads; 
or,  for  a  custom  house,  under  the  power  to  regulate  commerce ;  or,  for  a  court 
house,  under  the  judiciary  power.  In  short,  the  clause  of  the  Constitution 
under  which  any  land  or  territory,  belonging  to  the  United  States,  mu/st  be 
governed  is  indicated  by  the  object  for  which  it  was  acquired  and  the  purpose 
to  which  it  is  dedicated.  So  long,  therefore,  as  the  organic  act  of  Utah  shall 
remain  in  force,  setting  apart  that  country  for  a  new  State,  and  pledging  the 
faith  of  the  United  States  to  receive  it  into  the  Union  so  soon  as  it  should  have 
the  requisite  population,  we  are  bound  to  extend  to  it  all  the  rights  of  self-gov- 
ernment, agreeably  to  the  clause  of  the  Constitution,  providing  for  the  admission 
of  new  States.  Hence  the  necessity  of  repealing  the  organic  act,  withdrawing 
the  pledge  of  admission,  and  placing  it  uuder  the  sole  and  exclusive  jurisdiction 
of  the  United  States,  in  order  that  persons  and  property  may  be  protected, 
and  justice  administered,  and  crimes  punished  under  the  laws  prescribed  by 
Congress  in  such  cases. 

While  the  power  of  Congress  to  repeal  the  organic  act  and  abolish  the 
Territorial  government  cannot  be  denied,  the  question  may  arise  whether  we 
possess  the  moral  right  of  exercising  the  power,  after  the  charter  has  been 
once  granted,  and  the  local  government  organized  under  its  provisions.  This 
is  a  grave  question — one  which  should  not  be  decided  hastily,  nor  under  the 
influence  of  passion  or  prejudice.  In  my  opinion,  I  am  free  to  say  there  is  no 
moral  right  to  repeal  the  organic  act  of  a  territory,  and  abolish  the  govern- 
ment organized  under  it,  unless  the  inhabitants  of  that  territory,  as  a  com- 
munity, have  done  such  acts  as  amount  to  a  forfeiture  of  all  rights  under  it — 
such  as  becoming  alien  enemies,  outlaws,  disavowing  their  allegiance,  or  resist- 
ing the  authority  of  the  United  States.  These  and  kindred  acts,  which  we 
have  every  reason  to  believe  are  daily  perpetrated  in  that  Territory,  would 
not  only  give  us  the  moral  right,  but  make  it  our  imperative  duty  to  abolish 
the  territorial  government  and  place  the  inhabitants  under  the  sole  and  exclu- 
sive jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,  to  the  end  that  justice  may  be  done, 
and  the  dignity  and  authority  of  the  government  vindicated. 

I  have  thus  presented  plainly  and  frankly  my  views  of  the  Utah  question — 
the  evils  and  the  remedy — upon  the  facts  as  they  have  reached  us,  and  are 
supposed  to  be  substantially  correct.  If  official  reports  and  authentic  in- 
formation shall  change  or  modify  these  facts,  I  shall  be  ready  to  conform 
rny  action  to  the  real  facts  as  they  shall  be  found  to  exist.  I  have  no  such 
pride  of  opinion  as  will  induce  me  to  persevere  in  an  error  one  moment  after 
my  judgment  is  convinced.  If,  therefore,  a  better  plan  can  be  devised — one 
more  consistent  with  justice  and  sound  policy,  or  more  effective  as  a  remedy 
for  acknowledged  evils,  I  will  take  great  pleasure  in  adopting  it,  in  lieu  of  the 
one  I  have  presented  to  you  to-night. 

In  conclusion,  permit  me  to  present  my  grateful  acknowledgments  for  your 
patient  attention  and  the  kind  and  respectful  manner  in  which  you  have  re- 
ceived uiy  remarks. 


RETURN     CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 

TO—  ^      202  Main  Library 

LOAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

Renewals  and  Recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  the  due  date. 

Books  may  be  Renewed  by  calling     642-3405. 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


. 

j 

AI  TO  DISC  CIRC 

£P^WVED 

SEP  01199 

J  AUG  0  7  1996 

CIRCUUTK5NOEPT. 

OCT  3  0  1S25 

IRCULATION  DEPT. 

J'JLl? 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
FORM  NO.  DD6  BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


